Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To access our archive, please log in or register now and read two articles from our archive every month for free. For unlimited access to our archive, as well as to the unrivaled analysis of PS On Point, subscribe now.

Also, when speaking of Spain and calling the Spanish assertion of power a systematic expulsion, it might enlighten others to know that when the divisions among the Visigoth, created an opening for Tariq bin Zayad to invade this land with 300 Arabs and 10,000 newly recruited Algerian Muslims, all seeking booty and paradise, with no option but victory and martyrdom, the similarity to present day ISIS is very significant. Then, when you note that Tariq burned his ships into the water and told his troops that they either win or die, the comparison to ISIS cannon fodder, is now absolute. There is little new under the sun, and ISIS is simply using tactics that were well known in the 7th century. As I see it nothing has been hijacked, but as always, history is repeating itself, and in like fashion authorities fail to dig deep enough to benefit from history. We can push aside, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. That apparently does not apply to the young men in Algeria, as their numbers run significantly in the ISIS front line.

This is an interesting commentary on the present day that leaves some key factors out. While it is romantic to consider that hijra, was an escape from persecution, let us not forget that Mecca tolerated numerous religions, before Muhammad's insistence that his religion was the one and only true religion. This is why he had to leave Mecca to go to Medina. Also, all unknown things pushed aside, in the end, the Arabian peninsula was to eventually be cleansed during the Ridda wars, of all other religions. This began with Muhammad. So this positive reflection on hijra is really disingenuous and does little to educate the average reader. The Islamic state's call for Hijra, is to many young and perhaps, un-accepting-of-modern-secularism, Muslims, a proper call. After all, as Gould points out, the Hijra is to escape to the land of Muslim rule. If partly secularized though "Muslim" states, are finding that they are in fact the land of the Murtad, because they have tweaked Islamic rule for a bit of freedom, democracy, or secular authoritarianism, then, quite honestly, a good Muslim, with a simple read of Quran and Hadith, finds that the Islamic state, does provide the best opportunity for a righteous HIjra. And if the Islamic state can point to individual gems in the Quran and Hadith, that prove they are in fact enforcing righteous sharia law, then who are the Murtad and Apostates, to question this? The truth is that Islam as a system of governance and a system of religion, to this day, is still, as Qutb observed, not ready for the "chill bro' its the 21st century" attitude that pushes aside the fine print in Islam. And re-writing the history of hijra, is not helping matters at all.

Gould writes that Mohammed fled to Medina to avoid persecution and be free to worship according to his faith. She uses this fact to argue that hijra, Islamic migration, was originally non-violent and solely about freedom from discrimination. This interpretation almost paints Mohammed as an early multi-culturalist. Gould, however, omits a crucial part of the story, namely, that Mohammed massacred the Jews of Medina. Mohammed’s migration and subsequent massacre of the local Jews (along with early history of Muslim conquest) might suggest that hijra and violent jihad were joined from the hip at the very outset of Islam. Is Gould's omission was a simple error—in which case one has to ask how a scholar can overlook such relevant pieces of evidence—or if her omission was intentional—in which case one has to ask about her motives and objectivity.

Rebecca Gould is trying to explain the Islamic history of "hijra" in an academic language. Yet ISIS has never been ambiguous about its interpretation of "hijra".
The word "jihad" gained notoriety since the 9/11 attacks, with Osama bin Laden urging Muslims to take up arms against "infidels". When ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi set up his own caliphate, the Islamic State last year, he called on all Muslims from all over the world to make "hijra" alone or with their families to "the new land of Khilafah" to write history and be part of the state-building process.
Hijra is an Arabic word for “emigration”, evoking the prophet Muhammad’s historic escape from Mecca to Medina to dodge assassins, who were plotting to kill him. He believed he would be able to practise his religion in peace in Medina.
Abdullah Azzam, co-founder of al-Qaida and the father of the modern jihad, defined hijra as leaving a land of fear for a land of safety. He later amplified to include the act of leaving one’s land and family to take up jihad in the name of Islam. For most Islamic extremists, the concepts of hijra and jihad are intimately linked.
With slick propaganda machine and social media operation touting the new golden era of Muslim pride and honour, ISIS has been successful in promoting the Khilafah and recruiting new followers in the West.
Young men are being lured to fight on battlefields and die as martyrs. Young, naive girls and women with a romantic idea of a jihad marriage have been persuaded to make their hijra to the Islamic State to marry fighters, who they got to know via the Internet and to bear children for the newborn state. They get carried away by the "sisterhood" in the caliphate and the financial incentives, such as travel expenses or compensation for bearing children. They totally ignore the fact that ISIS is strictly dominated by a bunch of brutish males, who take several wives. Once arrived these women realise that reality on the ground doesn't meet their expectations. They end up being raped, abused, sold into slavery or forced to marry other men. For them hijra means often a regretable mistake with traumatic consequences.

real & more pertinent issue is the false correlation ISIS is trying to create between their caliphake and the real islamic state of the Prophet's Medina and manage to use this as a drawcard for 'persecuted' teens (losties) in the west giving them the secure homeland where they will be welcome (as fresh suicide bomb mules)

There is no substance to this article. The only recent example of Hijrat was the failed attempt of Indian Muslims to resettle in Afghanistan after the first World War.
Many North Africans trace their ancestry to Spain and it is listed as territory to be reconquered. However the expulsion from there was not referred to as Hijrat because it was involuntary. As a dar ul harb- i.e. realm of war- it was not a place for peaceful domicile but la legitimate destination for slave raiding or conquest.
Palestenians do not speak of the events of '48 as hijrat but calamity because it was not for the purpose of separating from irreligious people.
Some people originating from the Indian subcontinent have an ancestral tradition of maintaining a scruple re. residence in 'dar ul harb'. However, this is notion has little salience for ISIS's leadership. Still, one can understand why some pious Hanafi Muslims from al Hind may be fooled into thinking they have a duty to emigrate to Daesh territory. But this is not true of most Arab Sunnis because they have been residing in Sunni ruled countries for hundreds of years.
What is nnovel about Daesh is the possibility of legally gaining wealth as 'ghanimat' (war-booty). Since the Caliph has a right to a 20 percent levy on this, an arbitrage opportunity for ethical investment is created.

Analysis the author presents, while be wholly commendable does NOT absolve the callousness of the "Muslim" solutions- as these very same problems of living described here, are also/ have been over time experienced by peoples of ALL other guiding religions and found "good" solutions, practical and theoretical.
Someone, preferably Muslims themselves, have to seek answers, that apparently seem just not possible- it is somehow a game of "whack the mole" embedded in this dysfunctional religion.

All these esoteric words reek with hypocrisy and bigotry, not only in the medieval but also in recent decades in the Muslim world. Take decades after WWII, minorities like Jews have to flee for their dear lives from Muslim lands. How about Christians? Does the. Story stop there? Hindus, Sikhs and Zorostrians have been forced to convert, denied opportunities and pay a heavy price to save their lives. Many were forced to leave the countries in which they lived for centuries.